I like Bernie, but HATE his fans/rabid supporters. The only thing the majority of these millennials seem to weigh between the candidates is "integrity." They couldn't give two sh!ts about the practicality of Bernie's policies, his knowledge in foreign affairs, or his hyper-focused rigid platform. I think one of the reasons why Hillary has been struggling to pull voters in is because of her haughty performances on stage. Finally, though, in the debate last night, she was more modest with herself while being serious about her contender. . . no more condescending smiles! When Hillary attacked Bernie's policies and agenda with forthright behavior and attitude, Bernie had almost nothing to defend with, falling back to the same catch-phrases, over and over. Last night he kind of reminded me of Rubio . . .

I've been reluctant to pick a candidate for a long time. What do you all think of Bernie Sanders?

Random thought: I wonder why a "B.S" catchphrase hasn't caught on for anti-Sanders/pro Hillary voters. It would be perfect lmao.

At 2/12/2016 11:25:37 PM, ben2974 wrote:I like Bernie, but HATE his fans/rabid supporters. The only thing the majority of these millennials seem to weigh between the candidates is "integrity." They couldn't give two sh!ts about the practicality of Bernie's policies, his knowledge in foreign affairs, or his hyper-focused rigid platform. I think one of the reasons why Hillary has been struggling to pull voters in is because of her haughty performances on stage. Finally, though, in the debate last night, she was more modest with herself while being serious about her contender. . . no more condescending smiles! When Hillary attacked Bernie's policies and agenda with forthright behavior and attitude, Bernie had almost nothing to defend with, falling back to the same catch-phrases, over and over. Last night he kind of reminded me of Rubio . . .

I've been reluctant to pick a candidate for a long time. What do you all think of Bernie Sanders?

Random thought: I wonder why a "B.S" catchphrase hasn't caught on for anti-Sanders/pro Hillary voters. It would be perfect lmao.

He is a decent guy but an awful candidate due to his unelectability to centrist voters. He would also make an awful president due to his inept policies in economics and foreign affairs. The two biggest issues in American politics. He would borrow beyond America's means with his spending proposals, scare away the rich and big business with tax increases leading to reduced revenue from taxes and increased unemployment while further increasing unemployment through minimum wage increases. He would also be very weak on the international stage, allowing Russia, China, north Korea, Iran and Islamic state a free reign to do as they please.

He wants to raise effective tax rates significantly for all income brackets. I can't agree with that.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

I like him a lot. He beats Hillary in pretty much every general mashup; he gets higher support among not only youths and lower-income brackets but also independents/moderates; and he has genuine integrity and principles, unlike anyone else running for the Democratic nomination.

Whether you like Bernie or not, what I find disturbing is the delegate votes. Despite Bernie winning by a landslide in NH, delegate votes were equal, 15/15. On the Iowa side, Hillary won by only by .03% of votes but picked up 8 more delegates than Bernie. This is due to super delegates. Where they, by rules do not have to align themselves to the popular the vote but, who"s votes have the same weight as regular delegates. This is a rigging of the process on the part of the DNC against the popular vote. Conceivably, even If Bernie wins the popular vote through the remainder of the primaries, Hillary could win the primaries due to the super delegates.

At 2/13/2016 5:45:27 PM, Peepette wrote:Whether you like Bernie or not, what I find disturbing is the delegate votes. Despite Bernie winning by a landslide in NH, delegate votes were equal, 15/15. On the Iowa side, Hillary won by only by .03% of votes but picked up 8 more delegates than Bernie. This is due to super delegates. Where they, by rules do not have to align themselves to the popular the vote but, who"s votes have the same weight as regular delegates. This is a rigging of the process on the part of the DNC against the popular vote. Conceivably, even If Bernie wins the popular vote through the remainder of the primaries, Hillary could win the primaries due to the super delegates.

Read and discussed this yesterday elsewhere. It's pretty insane for sure. Clinton, I think, had a similar advantage back in 2008, but lost it to Obama. That outcome might not translate well in 2016 because Bernie is a complete outsider, only recently identifying as a democrat for the purposes of running. He has no base for support, whereas Obama presumably did.

At 2/13/2016 5:45:27 PM, Peepette wrote:Whether you like Bernie or not, what I find disturbing is the delegate votes. Despite Bernie winning by a landslide in NH, delegate votes were equal, 15/15. On the Iowa side, Hillary won by only by .03% of votes but picked up 8 more delegates than Bernie. This is due to super delegates. Where they, by rules do not have to align themselves to the popular the vote but, who"s votes have the same weight as regular delegates. This is a rigging of the process on the part of the DNC against the popular vote. Conceivably, even If Bernie wins the popular vote through the remainder of the primaries, Hillary could win the primaries due to the super delegates.

Read and discussed this yesterday elsewhere. It's pretty insane for sure. Clinton, I think, had a similar advantage back in 2008, but lost it to Obama. That outcome might not translate well in 2016 because Bernie is a complete outsider, only recently identifying as a democrat for the purposes of running. He has no base for support, whereas Obama presumably did.

I didn't catch the thread on this. The point being, despite Bernie being an outsider, who the DNC does not like, the winner of the primary should be determined by the popular vote. The Dems made this rule in 84 for the sole purpose of keeping the "unwanted" off their ticket. As it stands, it's impossible for an Independent to run at the presidential level due to the 2 party system infrastructure; Bernie had no alternative but to join the Dems as a result. I'm not a Bernie supporter but, this is a subversion of the democratic process, and it's evident where the voters are leaning. I expect something similar on the Rep. side to occur regarding Trump and Cruz since neither have their party's support.

At 2/13/2016 5:45:27 PM, Peepette wrote:Whether you like Bernie or not, what I find disturbing is the delegate votes. Despite Bernie winning by a landslide in NH, delegate votes were equal, 15/15. On the Iowa side, Hillary won by only by .03% of votes but picked up 8 more delegates than Bernie. This is due to super delegates. Where they, by rules do not have to align themselves to the popular the vote but, who"s votes have the same weight as regular delegates. This is a rigging of the process on the part of the DNC against the popular vote. Conceivably, even If Bernie wins the popular vote through the remainder of the primaries, Hillary could win the primaries due to the super delegates.

Read and discussed this yesterday elsewhere. It's pretty insane for sure. Clinton, I think, had a similar advantage back in 2008, but lost it to Obama. That outcome might not translate well in 2016 because Bernie is a complete outsider, only recently identifying as a democrat for the purposes of running. He has no base for support, whereas Obama presumably did.

I didn't catch the thread on this. The point being, despite Bernie being an outsider, who the DNC does not like, the winner of the primary should be determined by the popular vote. The Dems made this rule in 84 for the sole purpose of keeping the "unwanted" off their ticket. As it stands, it's impossible for an Independent to run at the presidential level due to the 2 party system infrastructure; Bernie had no alternative but to join the Dems as a result. I'm not a Bernie supporter but, this is a subversion of the democratic process, and it's evident where the voters are leaning. I expect something similar on the Rep. side to occur regarding Trump and Cruz since neither have their party's support.

It is interesting to see many of the popular candidates deemed "outsiders" by their respective tickets. Logically, if the traditional candidates are losing ground in the polls, it should indicate to the affected political parties that it's time to make some changes.

IOW if your stances are no longer popular with your own affiliated voters, why are you still pushing the same tired rhetoric?

At 2/13/2016 5:45:27 PM, Peepette wrote:Whether you like Bernie or not, what I find disturbing is the delegate votes. Despite Bernie winning by a landslide in NH, delegate votes were equal, 15/15. On the Iowa side, Hillary won by only by .03% of votes but picked up 8 more delegates than Bernie. This is due to super delegates. Where they, by rules do not have to align themselves to the popular the vote but, who"s votes have the same weight as regular delegates. This is a rigging of the process on the part of the DNC against the popular vote. Conceivably, even If Bernie wins the popular vote through the remainder of the primaries, Hillary could win the primaries due to the super delegates.

Read and discussed this yesterday elsewhere. It's pretty insane for sure. Clinton, I think, had a similar advantage back in 2008, but lost it to Obama. That outcome might not translate well in 2016 because Bernie is a complete outsider, only recently identifying as a democrat for the purposes of running. He has no base for support, whereas Obama presumably did.

I didn't catch the thread on this. The point being, despite Bernie being an outsider, who the DNC does not like, the winner of the primary should be determined by the popular vote. The Dems made this rule in 84 for the sole purpose of keeping the "unwanted" off their ticket. As it stands, it's impossible for an Independent to run at the presidential level due to the 2 party system infrastructure; Bernie had no alternative but to join the Dems as a result. I'm not a Bernie supporter but, this is a subversion of the democratic process, and it's evident where the voters are leaning. I expect something similar on the Rep. side to occur regarding Trump and Cruz since neither have their party's support.

I understand. I was just pointing out the differences in 2008. I don't think the GOP has a similar thing with the superdelegates?

At 2/13/2016 5:45:27 PM, Peepette wrote:Whether you like Bernie or not, what I find disturbing is the delegate votes. Despite Bernie winning by a landslide in NH, delegate votes were equal, 15/15. On the Iowa side, Hillary won by only by .03% of votes but picked up 8 more delegates than Bernie. This is due to super delegates. Where they, by rules do not have to align themselves to the popular the vote but, who"s votes have the same weight as regular delegates. This is a rigging of the process on the part of the DNC against the popular vote. Conceivably, even If Bernie wins the popular vote through the remainder of the primaries, Hillary could win the primaries due to the super delegates.

Read and discussed this yesterday elsewhere. It's pretty insane for sure. Clinton, I think, had a similar advantage back in 2008, but lost it to Obama. That outcome might not translate well in 2016 because Bernie is a complete outsider, only recently identifying as a democrat for the purposes of running. He has no base for support, whereas Obama presumably did.

I didn't catch the thread on this. The point being, despite Bernie being an outsider, who the DNC does not like, the winner of the primary should be determined by the popular vote. The Dems made this rule in 84 for the sole purpose of keeping the "unwanted" off their ticket. As it stands, it's impossible for an Independent to run at the presidential level due to the 2 party system infrastructure; Bernie had no alternative but to join the Dems as a result. I'm not a Bernie supporter but, this is a subversion of the democratic process, and it's evident where the voters are leaning. I expect something similar on the Rep. side to occur regarding Trump and Cruz since neither have their party's support.

It is interesting to see many of the popular candidates deemed "outsiders" by their respective tickets. Logically, if the traditional candidates are losing ground in the polls, it should indicate to the affected political parties that it's time to make some changes.

IOW if your stances are no longer popular with your own affiliated voters, why are you still pushing the same tired rhetoric?

Agreed. A lot has to do with influence and sources of political donations. It really does not reflect what "the people" want anymore.

At 2/13/2016 5:45:27 PM, Peepette wrote:Whether you like Bernie or not, what I find disturbing is the delegate votes. Despite Bernie winning by a landslide in NH, delegate votes were equal, 15/15. On the Iowa side, Hillary won by only by .03% of votes but picked up 8 more delegates than Bernie. This is due to super delegates. Where they, by rules do not have to align themselves to the popular the vote but, who"s votes have the same weight as regular delegates. This is a rigging of the process on the part of the DNC against the popular vote. Conceivably, even If Bernie wins the popular vote through the remainder of the primaries, Hillary could win the primaries due to the super delegates.

Read and discussed this yesterday elsewhere. It's pretty insane for sure. Clinton, I think, had a similar advantage back in 2008, but lost it to Obama. That outcome might not translate well in 2016 because Bernie is a complete outsider, only recently identifying as a democrat for the purposes of running. He has no base for support, whereas Obama presumably did.

I didn't catch the thread on this. The point being, despite Bernie being an outsider, who the DNC does not like, the winner of the primary should be determined by the popular vote. The Dems made this rule in 84 for the sole purpose of keeping the "unwanted" off their ticket. As it stands, it's impossible for an Independent to run at the presidential level due to the 2 party system infrastructure; Bernie had no alternative but to join the Dems as a result. I'm not a Bernie supporter but, this is a subversion of the democratic process, and it's evident where the voters are leaning. I expect something similar on the Rep. side to occur regarding Trump and Cruz since neither have their party's support.

I understand. I was just pointing out the differences in 2008. I don't think the GOP has a similar thing with the superdelegates?

True, the Reps do not have the same super delegate system, but I'm sure if Trump and Cruz continue to stay high in the poles the Reps will finagle an out to keep them off the ballot.

At 2/12/2016 11:25:37 PM, ben2974 wrote:I like Bernie, but HATE his fans/rabid supporters. The only thing the majority of these millennials seem to weigh between the candidates is "integrity." They couldn't give two sh!ts about the practicality of Bernie's policies, his knowledge in foreign affairs, or his hyper-focused rigid platform. I think one of the reasons why Hillary has been struggling to pull voters in is because of her haughty performances on stage. Finally, though, in the debate last night, she was more modest with herself while being serious about her contender. . . no more condescending smiles! When Hillary attacked Bernie's policies and agenda with forthright behavior and attitude, Bernie had almost nothing to defend with, falling back to the same catch-phrases, over and over. Last night he kind of reminded me of Rubio . . .

I've been reluctant to pick a candidate for a long time. What do you all think of Bernie Sanders?

Random thought: I wonder why a "B.S" catchphrase hasn't caught on for anti-Sanders/pro Hillary voters. It would be perfect lmao.

I actually don't really like Bernie- even aside from his supporters, some of whom really are rabid. (And if you don't believe that, try posting anything anti-Bernie on HuffPost).Bernie has been in politics for decades and knows that his policies are completely unrealistic. That's why he keeps going back to his broad talking points whenever Hillary challenges him on the details. He's just giving his supporters what they want to hear. His newest is that he will reduce the prison population. Really? Most prisoners are in state systems. Bernie is blowing smoke. Granted, it's working for him.

I admire Bernie's passion for change and his desire to help the people, but I find that his solutions will actually have the opposite effects and be quite dire. I am coming out of bias though, as I am an Austria-School economics followers and a staunch Libertarian.

At 2/13/2016 5:45:27 PM, Peepette wrote:Whether you like Bernie or not, what I find disturbing is the delegate votes. Despite Bernie winning by a landslide in NH, delegate votes were equal, 15/15. On the Iowa side, Hillary won by only by .03% of votes but picked up 8 more delegates than Bernie. This is due to super delegates. Where they, by rules do not have to align themselves to the popular the vote but, who"s votes have the same weight as regular delegates. This is a rigging of the process on the part of the DNC against the popular vote. Conceivably, even If Bernie wins the popular vote through the remainder of the primaries, Hillary could win the primaries due to the super delegates.

If Bernie wins enough in the popular votes, the super delegates will switch. It's simple politics. They know they'd never survive if they picked Hillary after Sanders won the popular vote.

I love Bernie and feel he is a great voice to have out there inspiring democratic voters, but I don't see him as presidential material and I don't think his policies are realistic. Still, I'll take him over any of the crazies on the right, except maybe Kasich.

At 2/13/2016 5:45:27 PM, Peepette wrote:Whether you like Bernie or not, what I find disturbing is the delegate votes. Despite Bernie winning by a landslide in NH, delegate votes were equal, 15/15. On the Iowa side, Hillary won by only by .03% of votes but picked up 8 more delegates than Bernie. This is due to super delegates. Where they, by rules do not have to align themselves to the popular the vote but, who"s votes have the same weight as regular delegates. This is a rigging of the process on the part of the DNC against the popular vote. Conceivably, even If Bernie wins the popular vote through the remainder of the primaries, Hillary could win the primaries due to the super delegates.

If Bernie wins enough in the popular votes, the super delegates will switch. It's simple politics. They know they'd never survive if they picked Hillary after Sanders won the popular vote.

I don't share the same optimism. Look at what happened in NH. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC do not want to see Bernie win the primary. Like I said, not a Bernie fan, but the popular vote should win out. If by chance he does win the primary, it doesn't mean Hillary will drop out. Then the electoral college becomes a factor.